Category Archives: Enablement

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2018-00001 (US 9,539,268 B2) Final Written Decision April 29, 2019 Brief summary: GG found to have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Antecip’s claims related to zoledronic acid and methods for using the same to treat arthritis are … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2018-00001 (US 9,539,268 B2) Final Written Decision April 29, 2019 Brief summary: GG found to have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Antecip’s claims related to zoledronic acid and methods for using the same to treat arthritis are … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Regeneron et al. (Feb. 25, 2019 Update)

Docket No. 2017-1480 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 5, 2017 Update (Feb. 25, 2019): DC jury verdict (Case No. 1:14-cv-01317-RGA) found ‘165 claims 7 and 15 (“binds to at least D238” or “V380”, respectively) enabled but lacking written description; ‘165 claims … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Written description | Leave a comment

Concert Pharm., Inc. v. Incyte Corp.

Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00034 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,662,335 B2) Decision not to institute PGR January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Concert’s Petition to institute PGR of Incyte’s US 9,662,335 B2 regarding deuterated ruxolitinib was denied. Summary: Concert filed a Petition to institute … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Enablement, Post-grant review, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Epistar Corp., et al.

Docket No. 2016-2576 to 2581, 2016-2591 to 2595 PROST, MOORE, REYNA July 25, 2018 Brief summary: DC denial of Everlight’s motion for JMOL that is invalid for lack of enablement (§ 112) reversed (the FC panel explaining it “can safely … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement | Leave a comment

Richard Storer et al. v. Jeremy Clark and United States (intervenor)

Docket No. 2015-1802 (appeal from PTAB No. 105,981) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK June 21, 2017 Brief Summary: Board interference decision that Storer’s (Idenix’s) provisional application was not enabled for the claims affirmed because, e.g., “the art, at least with respect to … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Interference | Leave a comment

Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1275 LOURIE, LINN, HUGHES August 4, 2015 Brief Summary: DC conclusion of non-obviousness affirmed based on unexpected results and prior art’s teaching away. DC conclusions of no lack of written description or enablement also affirmed, as was its … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment